Judge Judy : Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

A car for your child to get around.

So I'm watching JJ, I'm not sure what day this episode aired, but it was between 10/31 and 11/3. Anywho the plaintiff was suing the defendant for $1600.

The plaintiff has a 12yr old child that lived between her and her mother. She did 27mos in jail and when she got out, she found her child's father had over $200,000 in the bank, but $22,000 in the rear. She received a check from him for $20,000 and JJ asks her what she did with the money. The plaintiff said she bought a car, a place to stay so her and her child can move out of her mom's house, and she also bought furniture such as beds for her and her child.

Apparently JJ was offended that she bought a car and furniture because child support is not for that. She should have put the majority of the money in the bank. JJ disregarded the fact that the car would be used to transport her child to wherever she's need to go and it's not just for the mom's pleasure.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what it was for, to provide for the child. By no means did she strike it rich. She got a one-time check for $20,000 and she used it to help get her and her child on their feet. She didn't say if the father started making regular payments.

This case really bothered me.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

I agree. Since when is buying a car to take the child back and forth to school and other places not a necessity?

JJ asked if she put any money aside for her college and the mom answered 'no' which got the scorn from JJ.

Sorry JJ - child support is not a 'college fund'; that is something totally different.

Child support is just that: to support the child's daily needs to live the first 18 years.

The daughter was 12 years old and he forked over $22,000. That's not even $2,000 a year to cover her living expenses - that's what JJ should have harped on.

The father has $200,000 in the bank? Great - he can set up a college fund for his daughter. Not the mother who is struggling to get by.

I wish the mother had thought of these answers to shoot back at JJ.


her child's father had over $200,000 in the bank, but $22,000 in the rear.


I think you mean "$22,000 in arrears". In his/the rear is something totally different.



"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16







Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

Lol...thanks for correcting me. That's how I've always heard it said or that's how it sounds to me. Now I know better.

Anywho I agree with you. I was telling my mom I wish she would have said that to JJ and my mom said she would have just shot her down.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

Your Mom is right - she would have shot her down. She hates when litigants talk sense to her.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16







Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

You guys certainly have an interesting take on this case. The plaintiff was in prison for over 2 years so her mother raised her child during that time. So what does mom do when she gets $20,000 in back child support- she buys a car, gets an apartment and a large screen tv and promptly gives/loans $1600 to her boyfriend. JJ was understandably pissed that the plaintiff spent all the money and had little to show that she had spent much on the child. Oh, but as a thanks for taking care of her daughter for 27 months, she gave her mom $1,000! That averages about $38 a month or so for her trouble. JJ strongly suggested the plaintiff put the money she was awarded away for her daughter's future, but she was too busy hootin' and hollerin' over $1600 to pay attention. Looks like mama's got her eye on a replacement weave instead!

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

I disagreed with JJ about putting the money away. To me, it's not an inheritance or a settlement owed to the child. It's back pay to the person who supported the child.

I agree about giving the grandmother only $1k. She took care of your kid for over 2 years on her dime where the mom didn't have worry and you only gave her $1k. She should have given her half imo.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…


she buys a car, gets an apartment and a large screen tv and promptly gives/loans $1600 to her boyfriend. JJ was understandably pissed that the plaintiff spent all the money and had little to show that she had spent much on the child.


Buying a car and getting an apartment is hardly "little to show" to support your daughter. These are some of the necessities in life. As far as the grandmother is concerned, I'd like to know whatever income the litigant was getting (welfare, food stamps, etc) was going directly to the grandmother for her use while litigant was in jail.

But still, I stand by my argument - child support is to support the child in the present (or in this case to be reimbursed for the past), not to 'invest' in their future.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16







Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…


You guys certainly have an interesting take on this case. The plaintiff was in prison for over 2 years so her mother raised her child during that time. So what does mom do when she gets $20,000 in back child support- she buys a car, gets an apartment and a large screen tv and promptly gives/loans $1600 to her boyfriend. JJ was understandably pissed that the plaintiff spent all the money and had little to show that she had spent much on the child. Oh, but as a thanks for taking care of her daughter for 27 months, she gave her mom $1,000! That averages about $38 a month or so for her trouble. JJ strongly suggested the plaintiff put the money she was awarded away for her daughter's future, but she was too busy hootin' and hollerin' over $1600 to pay attention. Looks like mama's got her eye on a replacement weave instead!


Look at some of the signatures of these users making negative comments about what JJ said to the leeching mom. They are Obama supporters. Nuff said.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

I think if someone gets a large child support check from the other parent and they haven't paid it in years and the parent with custody wasn't collecting welfare all those years (in that case welfare should be paid back) then the parent should be able to spend that money however they want. If they supported the kid(s) for years alone then that money has already been spent if that makes any sense and they can do what they want with the money. Would it be nice to put it in a college fund? Sure, but nowadays most kids pay their own college (not all).
I have a friend whose youngest child is 40 and oldest is 44 and she's still getting child support for them and probably will for many more years because he didn't pay anything when they were young. Is she suppose to turn that money over to her kids who both have good jobs and families of their own? No, she's receiving that money because she already paid out of her pocket and is now finally getting it back.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

I agree. A child needs a roof over their head, bed to sleep in and reliable transportation. How is buying this not for the child?

<“Every man of courage is a man of his word.” - Pierre Corneille>

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

This is why I cannot stand JJ. She is totally off base in some of her opinions. Legally speaking the mother is free to do whatever she wants with child support. Now if she got a boob job that's one thing. But she bought a car and some necessities with it.

Her show is so freaking dramatic, not to mention she does not explain THE LAW in any of her rulings. I don't get it. I watch her out of desperation when nothing else is on. I find the People's Court more civil since that judge explains her rulings and the law that applies to that state.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

I agree with you. I've been watching People's Court more lately than Judge Judy.

<“Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking, Nerf-herder!” — Princess Leia to Han>

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…


she does not explain THE LAW in any of her rulings. I don't get it.

Judy has stated that she is not bound by the law of any jurisdiction; she comes to her decisions through "common sense."

That is highly debatable. 😨

At least on The People's Court, Milian tries to stick to the law and explains how/why she ruled. She even apologies when her hands are tied by the law -- when she personally understands that someone actually got a bad deal.

Re: Child Support is for the Child not to buy…

You people are nuts. That money should have been for the child. Instead she blew it all on herself. She should buy her own car! And buy her own big-screen TV! She got a check for $20K....and the child didn't get one penny of it. Outrageous. It CHILD support. Not lazy irresponsible deadbeat support.
Top